ArticleThe journal of Tehran Heart Center2023
Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Cardiomyopathy Patients with Right Bundle Branch Block.
Article in The journal of Tehran Heart Center, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) is under debate. We present early and late echocardiographic characteristics of a series of heart failure patients with RBBB who underwent CRT. Methods: In this retrospective descriptive study, 18 patients with RBBB in the surface electrocardiogram underwent CRT between 2005 and 2015. All the patients had the New York Heart Association functional class III/IV, a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, and a QRS duration ≥120 milliseconds. The median follow-up duration was 19 months. The echocardiographic response was based on a ≥5% increase in LVEF. Results: Within 48 hours after CRT implantation, LVEF increased from 24.58%±7.08% before to 28.46±8.91% after CRT (P=0.005) and to 30.00±9.44% at follow-up (P=0.008). Among the 18 patients, 12 (66.7%) were responders within 48 hours after CRT. The following baseline echocardiographic parameters were higher in the responders than in those without an increased LVEF, although the difference did not reach statistical significance: septal-to-lateral wall delay (48.33±33.53 vs 43.33±38.82 ms), anteroseptal-to-posterior wall delay (41.7±1.75 vs 38.33±18.35 ms), and interventricular mechanical delay (48.50±21.13 vs 31.17±19.93 ms). The mean QRS duration was higher in the responders than in the non-responders (183.58±40.69 vs 169.00±27.36 ms). Death was reported in 3 out of the 18 patients (16.7%) at follow-up. The 3 deceased patients had a higher baseline interventricular mechanical delay than those who survived. Conclusion: Our results indicated that patients with RBBB might benefit from CRT. Further, patients with higher intra and interventricular dyssynchrony and a wider QRS may show better responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.